Last month, the Trump Administration reinterpreted when a major source of hazardous air pollutants may be regulated less stringently. The policy change failed to provide an adequate explanation and thus would likely be remanded to the agency for further consideration and explanation should it be challenged in court.
Oil Overload: Why Trump’s Plan to Increase Offshore Drilling May Be Unnecessary By Xavier Audick, Staff Contributor In 2016, President Barack Obama constructed a massive barrier for the prevention of […]
Trump Budget Cuts Signal Increased Delays to Superfund Site Cleanups By Dana Lyons, Staff Contributor Communities across the country are concerned that President Trump’s proposed budget will significantly delay, or […]
Is Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement Merely a Matter of Optics? By Paolo Olavario, Staff Contributor Since President Trump assumed office, there has been wide speculation of how the […]
Drain the Swamps: A Brief History of “Waters of the United States” and the Trump Administration’s Attempt at Defining the Term By: Tim Stanis, Staff Contributor On February 28, President […]
In the Mix: How Will Trump’s Administration Shape America’s Energy Profile? By Lily Ricci, Staff Contributor Last week, Congress kicked-off the Republicans’ avowed war on environmental oversight by dusting off […]
Here is a sneak peek of an upcoming article by Jonathan Lovvorn, the Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel for Animal Protection Litigation at the Humane Society of the United […]
The Role of Cities and States in Combating Climate Change By Thomas Forman, Staff Contributor The election of President Donald J. Trump has generated tremendous uncertainty regarding the role […]
Currently, environmental regulations are squarely in the cross hairs of both the President and Congress. But this could be an opportunity for activists to create change through alternative, creative channels outside of EPA regulations. One successful approach may be shareholder proposals.